We begin today’s study of Taanit, on page 14a, at the top of the first column, on the third line. The learning is dedicated by Jamal Boyz, Norman, Joseph, and Jacob, in memory of their grandparents, Sally and Norman Jamal, Vicky, and Joseph Bader. May their souls be bound in the bond of eternal life. Amen. Today’s study is also in honor of a complete recovery for Chaya Salam bat Simcha Edna, together with all those who are ill among the Jewish people. Amen.
Rav Ashi says that the wording of the Mishnah is precise. It says, “What do the later fasts have over the earlier ones? In the later fasts, they sound the alarm and close the stores, whereas in the earlier fasts, they do not.” The implication is that these are the only differences between the second set of fasts and the final set. Regarding everything else—including the twenty-four blessings recited by the prayer leader—they are equal. The Mishnah does not say that the earlier fasts do not include the twenty-four blessings. It must therefore be that both sets include them.
At this point, the Gemara is attempting to establish that both the second and third sets of fasts include the twenty-four blessings in the communal Amidah. One could respond that whenever a Mishnah says that one category has something more than another, perhaps the Tanna did not mention every distinction. Perhaps the Mishnah omitted one difference: the second set does not include the twenty-four blessings, while the final set does.
The Gemara rejects that possibility in this case because the Mishnah says, “What do these have over those?” The expression “what do these have” sounds precise, as though the Mishnah is identifying the complete difference between the two groups. That wording does not allow us to assume that an additional distinction was omitted.
However, the Gemara raises a difficulty. We already know that the Mishnah omitted another distinction: on the final fasts, they would bring the ark outside the synagogue and place it in the public square, whereas they did not do so during the second set of fasts. This distinction is not mentioned here. Perhaps, then, the word “these” does not necessarily exclude omitted differences.
The Gemara answers that the ark is different. The matter of bringing out the ark was already mentioned in another chapter. Since the same author taught both Mishnayot, he relied on the other passage to provide that detail and did not need to repeat it here. Therefore, the omission of the ark does not undermine the precision of the expression “what do these have over those.”
The Gemara then says that the same argument could be made regarding the twenty-four blessings. If a distinction mentioned elsewhere does not have to be repeated, perhaps the twenty-four blessings were also mentioned in another chapter, and the Mishnah here relied on that passage. If so, the fact that the Mishnah does not mention the twenty-four blessings does not prove that the second and final sets are equal in this regard. The proof has therefore fallen away.
Let us return to the original issue. We had a teaching that distinguished between an individual and a community on a fast day: an individual recites eighteen blessings, while the prayer leader recites nineteen. We asked how that could be, since we have a principle that a prayer leader does not recite only nineteen blessings on a communal fast. On the relevant fasts, he recites twenty-four blessings.
The Gemara’s first answer was that the teaching is referring to the earlier fasts, when the twenty-four blessings were not yet recited. During those fasts, the individual recites eighteen blessings, while the prayer leader recites nineteen, because the individual recites the supplication “Answer us” without a separate blessing, whereas the prayer leader recites it as an additional blessing.
The Gemara originally limited the matter to the first set of fasts, since the second and final sets might both include the twenty-four blessings. Now, however, after raising the possibility that the second and final sets are not equal in this regard, the answer could even refer to the second set. If the second set does not include the twenty-four blessings, then it too could be the setting in which the individual recites eighteen blessings and the prayer leader recites nineteen.
The Gemara then discusses where the additional blessing is inserted. Rav Ashi says that, in the case of an individual, the blessing “Who hears prayer” is included, and the individual does not recite “Answer us” as a separate blessing. The discussion proceeds to the next matter.
A Tanna taught: Pregnant women and nursing women fast during the first set of fasts, but they do not fast during the later sets. Another Baraita says that they fast during the final set, but not during the first set. A third Baraita says that they do not fast during either the first or the final set. Each Baraita appears to say something different.
The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction by establishing that pregnant and nursing women fast only during the middle set. They do not fast during the first set because those fasts are not yet sufficiently severe to require it. They do not fast during the final set because seven fasts are too burdensome for them. Three fasts, however, are manageable, and therefore they fast during the middle set.
When one Baraita says that they fast during the final set but not during the first, “the final set” refers to the middle set in comparison with the first set. The middle set is later than the first, even though it is not the final set in the full series. “The first set,” in that statement, means the first set in the literal sense, while “the final set” is relative to the first set being discussed.
The Baraita that says they fast during the first set but not during the final set can be understood in a similar way. It is referring to the first and middle sets: they fast during the first set and do not fast during the final set. The third Baraita, which says that they do not fast during either the first or final sets, is straightforward: they do not fast during the first or final sets, but they do fast during the middle set. This is the language used by the Tannaim, and no further adjustment is necessary.
Tosafot, on the second Tosafot, essentially repeats Rashi’s explanation. The first interpretation in Tosafot discusses how “the final set” can refer to the middle set, while “the first set” refers to the first set itself. The terminology is relative to the comparison being made.
The Mishnah then asks what the final set of fasts has over the earlier sets. It says that during the final set they sound the alarm and close the stores. There is a major dispute about the meaning of “sound the alarm.” It may mean that they blow the shofar, although, grammatically, another expression might have been preferable. Alternatively, it may mean that they cry out in prayer and recite a special service.
Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Shilat, said in the name of Rav that the distinction is that during the final set they recite “Answer us.” This cannot refer to the “Answer us” included in the blessing “Who hears prayer,” because that is recited even during the first fasts. It must refer to the additional series of supplications called “Answer us,” similar to the supplications recited during the penitential prayers.
Rashi explains that “sounding the alarm” means blowing the shofar and that the expression for sounding an alarm is related to the sound of the shofar. The sound itself consists of a broken or plaintive note. We know that each set of blasts includes a tekiah before the broken note and a tekiah afterward. Thus, each alarm consists of three sounds. Since there are six additional blessings, and three blasts are sounded during each blessing, there are eighteen blasts altogether.
Why do they blow the shofar? The purpose is to awaken the people when troubles come upon the Jewish people. The sound of the shofar is intended to frighten and shake them, so that they examine their sins and repent. During the fast-day service, they would sound one set of blasts with each blessing, for a total of eighteen blasts.
According to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the additional supplications were recited aloud. They would say, “Answer us, our Father; answer us. Answer us, God of Abraham; answer us. Answer us, God of Isaac; answer us,” and so forth. These were recited at the conclusion of the blessings. This is not the “Answer us” of the regular Amidah, which is recited even during the first set of fasts. It is a separate series of supplications recited as part of the special service.
The Gemara asks whether the opinions are mutually exclusive. Does the opinion that “sounding the alarm” means blowing the shofar maintain that they did not recite the additional supplications? Conversely, does the opinion that “sounding the alarm” means reciting the supplications maintain that they did not blow the shofar?
The Gemara initially assumes that the opinions are exclusive. On that understanding, one opinion requires shofar blasts and the other requires the additional supplications. The Gemara also explains the eighteen references as eighteen blasts. The way to remember this is through Jericho: at Jericho, the Jewish people blew the shofar, and the walls fell. Thus, when the Gemara uses Jericho as the sign by which to remember the eighteen blasts, it is clearly referring to shofar blasts.
The Gemara therefore revises its assumption. Everyone agrees that shofar blasts were sounded and that “sounding the alarm” can refer to the shofar. The dispute concerns only whether the additional supplications were also recited. One opinion says that they were recited in addition to the shofar blasts; the other says that they were not.
According to the first opinion, the straightforward meaning of “sounding the alarm” is shofar blasts, but the additional supplications were also included. According to the second opinion, the word “sounding the alarm” refers only to the shofar, and there were no additional supplications.
The Gemara brings another teaching to demonstrate that there was a Tannaitic dispute over this terminology. If a city was surrounded by an army, if a river overflowed, or if a ship was in danger, the people would call out even on Shabbat. They would call for assistance, but they would not recite the full communal prayer, since one does not generally pray for such matters in the regular way on Shabbat.
The Gemara asks how they would call out for assistance. It could not mean that they blew the shofar, because shofar blasts are not sounded on Shabbat for these matters. It must mean that they recited the supplication “Answer us.” From here we see that the word “sounding the alarm” can refer to calling out verbally rather than blowing the shofar.
This establishes a dispute among the Tannaim. One Tanna understands “sounding the alarm” as blowing the shofar, while another understands it as crying out in prayer. There is therefore no difficulty in saying that the earlier opinions reflect a Tannaitic dispute.
Tosafot offers another interpretation of the phrase “sound the alarm for assistance.” It may mean that people were called to come and help, like first responders. Alternatively, “sounding the alarm verbally” means crying out in prayer, since it would not be possible to blow the shofar on Shabbat.
Tosafot also explains the teaching about eighteen blasts. The reference to Jericho is not merely a reminder that shofar blasts were used. It also indicates the manner in which the blasts were arranged: just as they blew during each of the seven circuits around Jericho, so too they blew during each of the six additional blessings. There were three sounds in each blessing, producing eighteen blasts.
Another explanation, cited earlier, understands Jericho as a sign of the method’s effectiveness: just as the Jewish people were answered through the shofar at Jericho, so too the shofar is used during a fast to bring about an answer. Tosafot, however, understands Jericho as a sign of the structure of the blasts.
During the time of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’ah, there was a period of trouble. As prescribed by the Mishnah, he instituted thirteen fasts—three, three, and seven—but the people were not answered. He wanted to institute additional fasts. Rabbi Meir objected and said that the community had already fasted thirteen times. One may not impose further hardship on the community.
It is possible that Rabbi Meir made this statement for practical reasons because he himself did not want to continue fasting. Nevertheless, that is not necessarily the halachic conclusion in every situation. In the case of rain, once the appropriate rainy season has passed, additional communal fasts are no longer instituted, because there is no purpose in fasting for rain after the season in which rain is needed. The thirteen fasts are therefore connected to the agricultural season.
Other types of trouble are different. If grasshoppers, wild animals, or another calamity are harming the community, one continues to pray until the danger is removed. Such a decree must be eliminated regardless of how long it takes. The community may therefore continue to fast for those matters even after the thirteen fasts.
A Baraita states that when three fasts had been observed without an answer, they did not continue with rain-related fasts indefinitely. Rabbi Meir, however, was the very Rabbi Meir who had said that the community should not be burdened with more than thirteen fasts. The Gemara explains that the Baraita concerning thirteen fasts refers specifically to rain. Once the rainy season has passed, there is no point in continuing to fast for rain. It does not establish that thirteen is an absolute limit for every type of trouble.
According to the first opinion, thirteen is indeed the maximum number of communal fasts. According to the other opinion, that limitation applies only to rain, because the season has passed; for other troubles, the community may continue fasting until it is answered. The first opinion is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and therefore one cannot challenge him from another teaching attributed to Rabbi Meir.
Rashi explains that by the time the thirteen fasts have concluded, the season has advanced into Kislev. If the community has not received rain by then, continuing to fast is no longer useful, because the relevant period has passed. The purpose is to receive rain at the proper time.
Rashi also cites a tradition from Rabbi Shimon that during the period of drought, one may pray throughout the day, even at the gates of the Temple. Rabbi Meir, who was present, laughed and said that he was following the opinion of Rabbi, meaning that he was relying on the ruling that the community should not be burdened with more than thirteen fasts.
We now continue on 14b, in the second white line. The people of Nineveh sent a question to Rabbi. Their agricultural season was not identical to that of the Land of Israel. They needed rain during the summer, when the Land of Israel did not want rain. The question was: should they be treated as individuals, who insert their request for rain in the blessing “Who hears prayer,” or should they be treated as a community, which inserts the request in the blessing of the years?
Rabbi answered that they may not insert the request for rain in the blessing of the years at a time when the Land of Israel does not want rain. They should therefore treat themselves like individuals and add the request in the blessing “Who hears prayer,” before concluding the Amidah.
Tosafot explains that an individual recites the request for rain in the blessing of the years only during the season when the community needs rain. The people of Nineveh, however, are treated as individuals because their need occurs during the summer, when the general community—especially the Land of Israel—does not need rain. They therefore recite their request in “Who hears prayer.”
The discussion then turns to when the system of fasts applies. It applies when the years follow their normal agricultural cycle and the Jewish people are living in their land: the harvest takes place at its proper time, planting takes place at its proper time, and the rains are expected to follow that cycle.
The Gemara’s language suggests that when the agricultural cycle is not normal, each place follows its own needs. We are no longer speaking of a situation in which the entire Jewish people are living in the Land of Israel and following its agricultural pattern. A place whose rainy season differs from that of Israel follows its own season. This is why the people of Nineveh should be treated according to their local need.
The discussion also applies to places such as South America or Australia, where the seasons are reversed. They cannot recite the request for rain in the blessing of the years during the winter season of the Land of Israel if that is their dry season. They therefore make the request in “Who hears prayer,” like individuals praying for a personal need.
The Gemara discusses whether the fast-day system is dependent on the normal calendar of the Land of Israel or on local agricultural conditions. When the agricultural cycle is normal, the fasts are instituted according to the established times. When the local season differs, everything follows the needs of that place. If a particular year is unusual and requires more rain than usual, the local needs determine whether rain is required.
We return to the Mishnah: on Mondays and Thursdays, the stores are partially opened toward evening, while on Thursdays they are open throughout the day. The wording is clarified to mean that on Thursday the stores are open all day, because people must purchase not only what they need to break the fast but also what they need for Shabbat.
On Monday, however, the stores are opened only partially. If a store has two doors, the owner opens one and closes the other. That is considered partial opening. Alternatively, if a bench or another object blocks part of the entrance, the store is considered partially open. On Thursday, by contrast, the store is open in the normal manner throughout the day.
If the seven final fasts have passed and the people have still not been answered, they reduce commercial activity, construction, and planting. Construction that brings joy is prohibited. What is an example of joyful construction? Building a house for one’s son after his marriage. What is an example of joyful planting? Planting a royal tree.
Rashi explains that when a king was born, they would plant a tree for him. When he became king, they would cut down the tree and use its wood to make his throne. They would also plant a large tree that provided shade, beneath which the king could walk. Even planting a tree for shade is prohibited during this period, because it is considered joyful planting.
The people also reduce greetings. Since the issue is not simply the exchange of the word “peace,” but the conduct associated with ordinary social interaction, they respond briefly and seriously. They sit with their heads covered, as mourners did according to the custom of earlier times. This demonstrates that they are in mourning because of the absence of rain and that they regard themselves as distanced before God.
The Gemara then discusses whether an important person may cover himself with sackcloth and lower his head in prayer. It is not appropriate for an important person to do so unless he knows that he will be answered, as Joshua the son of Nun was answered. Joshua fell on his face, and God said to him, “Rise up. Why are you falling on your face?”
Why should a person who is not certain that he will be answered refrain from doing so? Rashi explains that if an important person lowers himself in this manner and is not answered, people may become angry and say that he is not truly important or righteous. Therefore, only someone who knows that he will be answered should act in this way.
Rashi brings another example involving Jehoram. There was a famine, and Jehoram wore sackcloth. Although he was not righteous in every respect, he was answered, and an abundance followed. The point is that one may wear sackcloth or perform a public act of supplication only when there is reason to believe that the person is worthy of being answered.
The Gemara distinguishes between tearing one’s garment and falling on one’s face. Not everyone is permitted to perform either act. Moses and Aaron fell on their faces, while Joshua and Caleb tore their garments. The question is how this can be reconciled with the verse stating that Joshua himself fell on his face.
The Maharsha raises this question and explains that Joshua was not considered sufficiently important to perform the act of falling on his face while Moses and Aaron were still alive, because he remained subordinate to them. After Moses and Aaron died and Joshua became the actual leader, he was able to fall on his face.
The Gemara returns to the verse and observes that it says, “And Joshua,” rather than simply mentioning Joshua separately. The wording connects Joshua’s conduct with what preceded it. Moses and Aaron fell on their faces, and Joshua also performed an act of supplication. The conjunction indicates that Joshua did not merely tear his garment; he also fell on his face.
The discussion then considers different forms of bowing before the Messiah. Some people will stand, while others will bow fully. The ministers, who are of a lesser status, will show greater submission and bow, while the kings will stand. The wording of the verse determines whether the actions are being attributed to the kings, to the ministers, or to both.
The Gemara also discusses the verse, “Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the upright.” The Maharsha explains that “light” and “joy” may represent different kinds of benefit: light may refer to a spiritual benefit, while joy may refer to a more physical or tangible benefit.
Rashi, however, explains that the upright are on a higher level than the righteous. The order of the verse would then indicate that the upright receive joy in a superior sense. The wording of the prayer Nishmat seems to support this hierarchy: it mentions the upright, then the righteous, then the pious, and then the holy. This suggests a progression in spiritual levels.
The final Tosafot asks why the conjunction in the verse is not understood as adding one group to the other. Perhaps the righteous receive light and also joy, while the upright receive joy as well. Tosafot explains that if we interpret the conjunction that way, we would also have to apply the same interpretation to the following phrase and combine the groups that appear there. That would erase the distinction between the groups, even though one is clearly presented as higher than the other.
Tosafot applies the same reasoning to the discussion of the kings and ministers. The words describing the ministers appear together, but there is a separation between the kings and the ministers. Therefore, the conduct of the ministers cannot simply be attributed to the kings as well. The separation in the verse indicates that their actions and levels are distinct.
Thus, when the Gemara discusses the kings and ministers, the ministers’ conduct is connected internally, while the kings remain a separate category. Similarly, the righteous and upright are not necessarily being described as receiving identical benefits. Their placement and separation in the verse preserve the distinction between them.
We conclude here with the words, “We shall return to you,” having completed this section of the tractate.